Opinion

Burney v. State

  • 5 Ala. App. 316
  • 59 So. 306
  • 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 183
Court
Alabama Court of Appeals
Filed
Jun 19, 1912
Status
Published
Author
Pelham
On the bench
Pelham
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 51.9%

The opinion

PELHAM, J. —

The defendant was tried on a complaint for false pretense, alleging that the defendant obtained goods of the value of $7.20 by falsely pretending that he had 15 bushels of corn with which to secure payment of the goods. It appears from the statements in the bill of exceptions that the defendant was not represented by counsel in the trial of the case, and no objection was made or exception reserved to any action or ruling of the court during the progress of the trial until a verdict of guilty was returned by the jury; whereupon a motion in arrest of judgment was made, on the ground that the complaint was not sufficient to support a judgment of conviction and did not charge any offense known to the law. The complaint charged that the defendant “did commit the offense of false pretense” by mortgaging 15 bushels of corn to a certain named party, knowing at the time he had no corn, and by such means obtained goods of the value of $7.20.

Deception and injury are the essence of our statutory crime of obtaining property by false pretense. — Chaun cey v. State, 130 Ala. 71 , 30 South. 403 , 89 Am. St. Rep. 17 . And the particularity to -be observed in indictments is not required in cases where the prosecu *318 tion is on a complaint commenced by affidavit. In such cases it is sufficient to designate the offense by the name it is known and distinguishable by in common parlance. — Brazleton v. State, 66 Ala. 96 .

In this case the complaint alleges the essence of the crime, and designates it by the name it is known by in legal and common parlance. The complaint was sufficient to support a conviction, and the motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled. — Brazleton v. State, supra; Rhodes v. King, 52 Ala. 272 ; Bell v. State, 75 Ala. 25 ; Brown v. State, 63 Ala. 97 ; Williams v. State, 88 Ala. 80, 7 South. 101 .

The court’s action in overruling the motion for a new trial is not revisable here. — Sanders v. State, 2 Ala. App. 13 , 56 South. 69 ; Ferguson v. State, 149 Ala. 21 , 43 South. 16 .

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.